Commonwealth v. Gendron

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Gendron

436 N.E.2d 997, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1376

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJune 30, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 436 N.E.2d 997 (Commonwealth v. Gendron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Gendron, 436 N.E.2d 997, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1376 (Mass. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

The order dismissing the complaints is reversed (1) because, on the representations of defense counsel at the hearing on the first motion to dismiss, there were “circumstance[s] not inconsistent with the purposes” of G. L. c. 90C, § 2, which required the conclusion that the trooper had been justified in not giving the defendant the citation at the time of the violations and (2) because, on the fourth unnumbered paragraph of the affidavit in support of the second motion to dismiss and the undisputed testimony of the trooper (which does not appear to have been questioned by the judge), the delivery of the citation to the defendant’s wife and the trooper’s advice to the defendant (in her presence) of such delivery and of the reason for is[931]*931suing the citation, all on the date of the offences, constituted a “deliver[y] to the offender” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the last sentence of the third paragraph of said § 2, as appearing in St. 1965, c. 692, § 3.

Robert L. Rossi, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Denis L. McKenna for the defendant.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The order dismissing the complaints is reversed (1) because, on the representations of defense counsel at the hearing on the first motion to dismiss, there were “circumstance[s] not inconsistent with the purposes” of G. L. c. 90C, § 2, which required the conclusion that the trooper had been justified in not giving the defendant the citation at the time of the violations and (2) because, on the fourth unnumbered paragraph of the affidavit in support of the second motion to dismiss and the undisputed testimony of the trooper (which does not appear to have been questioned by the judge), the delivery of the citation to the defendant’s wife and the trooper’s advice to the defendant (in her presence) of such delivery and of the reason for is[931]*931suing the citation, all on the date of the offences, constituted a “deliver[y] to the offender” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the last sentence of the third paragraph of said § 2, as appearing in St. 1965, c. 692, § 3.

Robert L. Rossi, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Denis L. McKenna for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 N.E.2d 997, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gendron-massappct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack